Ok.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > The argument for excluding the 0.96 tag makes sense. Can we agree to do > this: > > Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98 > Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, and 0.95.x > Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.95.x, and 0.94.x > Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb. > Commit site fixes: no version > > Should we remove 0.96 tag for now until the branch appears again? > > Thanks, > Jon. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank Jon, > > > > I do not think we have to include anticipated future branches in the > tags. > > The release notes are not accumulative but list changes made for each > > release. > > > > So if something is in 0.95.x a 0.96 tag neither needed nor wanted (IMHO) > > until we actually have a *parallel* 0.96 branch. > > > > That is why all 0.95+trunk changes *have* to be tagged with 0.98 as well, > > because at this point the two branches are in parallel. Actually we > should > > go through and make that so in jira. > > > > That means the 0.96 tag is not needed right now (and in fact will make > > just confusing, because at the time we do release 0.96 we'll see the same > > issue in the release notes twice) > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Jonathan Hsieh <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:40 AM > > Subject: Marking fix version > > > > Hey all, > > > > I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page here when we > committing > > code and that we are consistent when marking fix version in the jira. > Its > > pretty important that we get this right because our release notes are > > generated from these as of 0.94. > > > > Here's what I'm doing and suggesting > > > > Commit only to trunk: Mark with 0.98 > > Commit to 0.95 and trunk : Mark with 0.98, 0.96, and 0.95.x > > Commit to 0.94.x and 0.95, and trunk: Mark with 0.98, 0.96, 0.95.x, and > > 0.94.x > > Commit to 89-fb: Mark with 89-fb. > > Commit site fixes: no version > > > > My understanding is that 0.96 will be a branch off of 0.95 -- so any fix > to > > 0.95 is a fix to 0.96 until 0.96 branches. > > > > Thanks, > > Jon. > > > > -- > > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > > // [email protected] > > > > > > -- > // Jonathan Hsieh (shay) > // Software Engineer, Cloudera > // [email protected] > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
